Q&A: Identifying Morality
Identifying Morality
Question
Good evening. I listened to your lecture series on Torah and morality, and from what I’ve also seen on the site I understand that you identify morality with what people intuitively recognize as moral. I wanted to ask: in light of the differences between different societies at different times, how can one assume that this tool has an objective-universal aspect? In addition, why assume that a person has a cognitive capacity in this area, which seemingly has a purely metaphysical character? Thanks in advance.
Answer
Hello. There are disputes in Jewish law too, and that does not mean there is no halakhic truth. The fact that there are disagreements can also reflect that one is right and the other is mistaken. Moreover, circumstances also affect moral behavior, and therefore people in different circumstances will behave differently, and that is perfectly fine. Beyond that, I also think the world is progressing, and therefore moral norms change for the better (in terms of what is accepted as moral behavior, not necessarily in terms of what people actually do in practice). When an African society encounters a European society, the direction of change is clearly toward the European one, because it is more advanced (don’t tell anyone about my chauvinism).
If you do not see this as a cognitive process, then morality is subjective, and therefore it cannot be applied to someone who thinks differently. In that case there is no room for moral criticism of others (you feel this way and they feel differently).
Discussion on Answer
A. I don’t see a difference. A moral argument takes place between people with different positions, just like a halakhic argument. One can bring proofs here and there, and in fact sometimes people are persuaded even in a moral argument. Precisely for that reason I explain that this is a kind of cognition and not mere thinking.
B. I explicitly wrote that both mechanisms are correct.
C. You won’t find those values in the Torah either. It says, “And you shall do what is right and good,” but it does not spell out what is right and good (since this refers to what goes beyond Jewish law. Besides, even in Jewish law there are disagreements, as I wrote). It is quite clear that its intention is that each person knows for himself what is right and good. And the fact is that you will always derive from the Torah moral values that you already understand to be correct. I have never seen anyone change his moral opinion because of study of the Torah. He always finds in it what already seemed right to him from the outset.
Thanks for the answer.
A. I meant that maybe the argument is fundamentally barren, and we have no cognitive ability at all to judge the issue, so every opinion is doomed to fail from the outset—not like in Jewish law, which by definition is given over to human judgment.
B. I didn’t understand whether, in your view, morality is fixed and the circumstances change, or whether it develops along with the world.
C. I do think there are objective moral values, but human beings have no tools to recognize them. That’s where the Torah comes in: it tells us the moral values by virtue of the fact that God created the world, and with it “good” and “evil,” and through the Torah He tells us the objective moral values. As a subject, a human being doesn’t really have much to say on the matter.